(J^g Speach Of ... (g^ 



E 440 
.5 

.G79 
Copy 1 



NAVAL APPROPRIATION BILL. 



SPEECH 



. jj 



OP 



HON. J. S. GREEN, OF MISSOURI, 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, FEBRUARY 12, 1861. 



The Senate resumed the consideration of the 
bill (H. R. No. 714) making appropriations for 
the naval service for the year ending the 30th of 
June, 1862; the pending question being on con- 
curring in the following amendment, made as in 
Committee of the Whole, to add as an additional 
section: 

v3?irf he it further enacted,ThB.t the Secretary of the Navy- 
be, and he is hereby, authorized to cause to be constructed 
for the United States Navy, at as early a day as practicable, 
having due regard to efficiency and economy, seven steam 
screw'sloops-of-war, of the second class, as vessels are rated 
in the Navy, with full steam power, whose greatest draught 
of water shall not exceed fourteen feet, which sloops shall 
combine the heaviest armamentand greatest speed compat- 
ible with their character and tonnage ; and for the purpose 
above specified, the sum of $1,20U,000 be, and the same is 
herebv,appropriated,out of any money in the Treasury not 
otherwise appropriated, to be expended under the direction 
of the Secretary of the Navy. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. President, it nnight be sup- 
posed that the line of my remarks is not appro- 
priate to the present bill now pending befoi-e the 
Senate; but, under the circumstances growing out 
of the character of the speeches made on the pend- 
ing amendment, I think them entirely appropriate. 
The exact subject-matter upon which the Senatfe 
must now act, and to which the attention of the 
Senate ought to be directed, is, the propriety of the 
appropriation of $1,200,000 to build seven new 
screwsteamersofcertain dimensions and draught. 
In itself, it would seem to be a matter of very small 
importance; but when the intent with which it is 
now urged is shadowed forth by its friends, it 
stikes the public mind with so much force that 
we cannot resist the occasion to meet them in the 
proper spirit. At a time when the Treasury is 
depleted; at a time when there is no actual neces- 
sity for an increase of our naval force; at a time 
when, unfortunately, we have been driven into the 
market to borrow nearly seventy million dollars, 
in addition to a proposition to increase the duties 
upon all imported goods; and besides all this, 
when honest contracts are urged for payment, 
when the creditors of the Government are beg- 
ging you to pay them, they are put off with the 
poor and miserable plea, that we have not money 
to pay; men who have credited this Government 
for eighty years, who have advanced money and 
have never received it back, are to be pushed 
aside on the poor plea that we are not able to pay 



them now, and when you undertake to pay them 
the plea is urged, also, that the Government is 
presumed always to be ready, and therefore you 
will not pay interest — in this contingency and 
under this state of things we are asked to appro- 
priate $1,200,000 to build seven new steamers! 

I ask this question, and 1 want the country to 
respond to it, whether the Senate does or not: is 
there such a pressing necessity as to require of us 
to borrow money for that purpose — for it is to bor- 
row money ? To what purposes are these steam- 
ers to be applied.' Why is it at this time, when 
our resources are less than they have been for 
many years, when our credit is lower than it has 
been for a long number of years, why is it now- 
deemed necessary to borrow $1,200,000 to build 
seven new steamers.' This question would have 
been pertinent; it is now pertinent; it will remain 
pertinent; but the purpose was disclosed in the 
speech of the honorable Senator from New York. 
I do not mean the thin, keen-visaged, eagle-eyed 
Senator, but I mean the bellicose Senator, [laugh- 
ter,] whose voice is still for war, whose object is 
to involve us in serious, deadly conflict; and he 
says he wants them to coerce sovereign States. 
Why, sir, when we have been begging for. some 
private claims of a few dollars, the cry was, we 
had not the money; and when we answered it and 
said: " all we want is an acknowledgment of the 
debt; we will take your credit for them," a deaf 
ear was turned to us. When an application for 
$120,000,000— not thousands, but $120,000,000— - 
to build a railroad to the Pacific was made, it was 
adopted almost by acclamation. When the re- 
sources from the public lands, amounting to 
$3,500,000 annually, were proposed to be taken 
away by a homestead bill, to give to the vaga- 
bonds and scoundrels sent out from your over- 
grown cities, that was adopted with avidity. You 
vole away all your resources; you vote away 
$120,000,000. When we ask you to pay an hon- 
est debt, you say you have not got the money, 
and you will not therefore acknowledge it. Then 
you get up and say, give us $1,200,000 to build 
seven new steamers for war purpos.s, to coerce 
those Slates who deem themselves injured, and, 
in the exercise of their sovereign rigliis, choose 
to say they secede from the Union. 

Mr. President, it resolves itself into this ques- 



s, 



^^ 



tion — not the protection of public property; not 
the enforccmeiU of tlie laws; but, has any State 
a right to secede; and if she has the right under 
any circumstances and in any contingency, who 
is to be the judge of the circumstances that jus- 
tify it? If the Federal Government is to be the 
judge, the right does not exist. That is a denial 
of the right. If the State is to be the judge, that 
is an admission of the right. Who then is to be 
the judge; and if a wrong decision is made, on 
whom does the responsibility fall, and what con- 
sequences are to follow? Talk to me about en- 
forcing the law ! Why, sir, there is no man in 
the United States but wiiat says "enforce the 
law;" but enforce it where? Enforce it where 
you have jurisdiction; enforce it over your Union. 
That does not still meet the question ; for if a State 
has the right to secede and does secede, she is no 
longer a part of the Union; and the enforcement 
of the law within the Union does not include the 
right to enforce it in a seceding State. Protect 
public property, you say ? Sosayl. Whateveris 
public property, protect; protect it against John 
Brown and Montgomery and the Abolition hordes 
who rush into Missouri and Virginia. That is a 
diiferent question. But what is public property? 
That property which is appropriated to public 
purposes ioit/ti7i /Ae Union; not property outside 
of the Union. 

You have public property at Spezzia, on the 
Mediterranean; but I venture to say, that you will 
not send your Army and your Navy and your 
seven new steamers there, if the Government there 
says the circumstances of thatcountry require you 
to desist. You have public property in the city of 
London, where your minister resides. You will 
not send your Army and your Navy there to pro- 
tect it. You own it as a mere proprietor, and you 
are subjects to the local law, the law of Great Brit- 
ain. You have public property in other parts of 
the world, but you cannot protect it with military 
power. You can negotiate and insist upon a pro- 
tection of your rights; but that is all. 

Have you public property in South Carolina? 
for I intend to reduce this question to its simple 
elements. I answer, you have not one single par- 
ticle. The right to secede is a question that I 
postpone for after consideration. If, however, the 
right to secede is admitted, whatever forts, maga- 
zines, arsenals, or other jiublic property had been 
purchased, made, constructed, or improved by the 
Federal Government, cease to be public property 
of the Union; they follow, necessarily, the action 
of the local sovereignty. Port Sumter this day is 
wrongfully held by thisGovernment; it isan actof 
wariigainst the State of South Carolina. But you 
say, the Federal Government built it. I answer, | 
yes; with the consentofthc State. When? When 
that State was a jiarlof the Federal Union. For 
whose benefit? To protect Washington city ? No. 
To protect New York ? No. To protect Boston? 
No. To protect Charleston? Yes. Now, a fort 
built for the purpose of jn-otecting the city of 
Charleston, is, it seems, to have its ponderous 
guns turned and their frowning mouths directed 
against the very city for whose benefit it was 
erected. 

Whose money paid for it? you may ask. I 



answer, the money of the Federal Treasury. You 
then will ask this additional question: if the Fed- 
eral Treasury built tlie fort, and manned the fort, 
and armed the fort, although it was intended for 
the protection of South Carolina, can South Car- 
olina, by an act of secession, reclaim thatand take 
Federal property? I give you this answer: South 
Carolina contributed her due proportion for the 
building of all the forts; and she contributed as 
much to build Fort Columbus , and every northern 
fort, and every other southern fort as she did to 
build Fort Sumter; so that, in the adjustment of 
the accounts, there is no injustice done to any por- 
tion of the Union. She paid to build Fort Mc- 
Henry, Fortress Monroe, Fort Columbus, and all 
the other forts stretching from her northern line 
around to the extreme West — even along the great 
lakes. She paid her full proportion ; and if we paid 
our proportion for Fort Sumter, it is no injustice 
to divide. 

For what object was it erected ? It was erected 
to protect the city of Charleston and the State of 
South Carolina. But I will go a step further than 
that. I say there never was an instance in the 
history of the world, where a State seceded or 
revolutionized, when the act was complete, that 
any other State claimed the forts within her lim- 
its. I shall hereafter come to the point whether 
the act is yet complete or not; but I do say there 
never was an instance — you may search the rec- 
ords of the world — where a State revolutionizes 
or withdraws from an association of States, that 
any other Power claimed a fort situated in her 
limits. 

Hence, when you talk aboutprotecting the prop- 
erty of the United States, everybody will say that 
is right; but it leaves the question still unanswered , 
what is the property of the United States. When 
you talk about enforcing the laws within the 
jurisdiction of the United States, everybody res- 
ponds, yes; but it leaves the question still unan- 
swered, what are the limits of the United States. 
Hence, the whole of it, disguise it as you may, 
resolve's itself into this one question: has the State 
the right to secede, and has the State, in fact, se- 
ceded ? I challenge the world to meet that ques- 
tion, if you concede the right and the fact. There 
are two points in it: the ri-glU, and the exercise of 
the right. You may concede the right to all 
States; for if it exists with one, it exists with all. 
They are all on perfect terms of equality; every 
State in this Union acquired since the original 
thirteen formed the Confederation, is on exact 
terms of equality; and a Union not based upon 
terms of equality would not be worth preserving. 

Individuals may rise in a community, violate 
the laws, and subject themselves to punishment; 
but that never meets the real question that we 
have to consider. Our Government is one of its 
own jieculiar kind. This association of States is 
such a one as never existed before; and if broken 
up by the misconduct of its members, it will never 
have its counterpart. Individuals in a single Gov- 
ernment can commit treason, can commit rebel- 
lion, can violate the laws. Individuals in an 
associated Governnient can do the sanm things. 
But in regard to a State — a member of the asso- 
ciation — it brings up a different question for con- 



sideration. A county in a State is an integral 
part of the Stnte; an individual of a State is an 
integral part of a State; but tliis Federal Govern- 
ment is, as expressed by Mr. Calhoun, a multi- 
ple of units. Each State being an entirety, an 
entity, a thing of itself, having power to breathe 
and exist, it goes into this multiple by its own 
voluntary action. 

In all such cases, every sovereignty can go out 
of its own voluntary action, it being an entirety 
and a unit, and not afew individuals; and all this 
talk about coercing springs from a confounded 
notion of thought — I mean an uncomprehended 
consideration of the subject, that they are indi- 
viduals, and not State sovereignties. They con- 
found the idea, and undertake to liken a State in 
the Union to a county in a State; but more differ- 
ent ideas could not possibly be presented. A 
county in a State is a fragment of a State; a State 
in the Union is an entirety; it is a unit; it is a 
voluntary memberof an association. The county 
is no voluntary member, because every county in 
a State but one may vote for a law, and yet that 
one be bound by it. Any county in a State, there- 
fore, that revolts; any fragmentof a united sover- 
eignty that flies off; any segment of an entire 
circle that is broken, in a political sense, is rebel- 
lion; but when you take an association resting 
upon volition, resting upon consent, and that con- 
sent is withdrawn, and the determination is ex- 
pressed to cease to be in the association, that 
State is no longer one of the Confederation. I 
know the question may be asked: what will jus- 
tify such an act.' I will not answer; and why.' I 
have no right to answer. 

The State must take the responsibility; the State 
itself, is the judge of what will justify it. If any 
other power is the judge, the right does notexist; 
and to assert that any other power is the judge, is 
to deny the right. Each State must judge for 
itself. But suppose the State judges wrongfully 
and decides improperly, and on mere pretense 
says: " We will dissolve the association into 
which we have honorably entered;" then the 
State has done wrong. Who is to punish the 
State.' Nobody. Who is to condemn the State? 
The enlightened judgment of mankind. That is 
all. There is no other tribunal that can possibly 
pass judgment upon her. Who passed judgment 
upon the Revolution of 1776? The enlightened 
judgment of the world. Was that war, waged by 
George 111, on the advice of his ministers, a right- 
ful or a wrongful war? Everybody in the United 
States says it was a wrongful war. What was 
the object of that war? To reduce the thirteen 
colonies to subjection. Why was it a wrongful 
war? Did not these colonies belong to Great 
Britain ? Yes. Were they not subject to the 
.control of the British Crown ? Yes. Did they not 
throw off their allegiance and renounce it, say- 
ing that they would hold England, as they did all 
the rest of the world, in peace friends, in war en- 
emies? Yes. Was not this rebellion ? Yes. If 
it was a rebellion, even a case of rebellion you say 
was justifiable, and a war made against rebels was 
a wrongful war. Every man, woman, and child 
ia the United States says even that. Recollect, 
.the colonies were not component pjirts of a Gov- 



ernment, formed by the voluntary action of in- 
dependent communities. They were colonies 
planted , conquered , or purchased by Great Britain . 

Even in that case, everybody says the war was 
a wrongful war, brought on by the improper ac- 
tion of the ministers of George III. If that be 
true, how much stronger, how much more palpa- 
ble, and how much more extraordinary would it 
be if herein an association of equals — each one 
coming in by its own consent, and each one going 
out by its own consent — when one goes out, you 
are to undertake to exercise military power and 
control, and bring on war by the action of the 
Federal Government. Who would be the wrong- 
ful actor in this light? It would be the FedereJ 
Government. I do not anticipate any great diffi- 
culty, because I know the good sense, I know the 
sound judgment, and I know the warmth of heart 
of the American people will prevent all of this; 
and the few politicians who, to make themselves 
conspicuous, talk about war, and yet would be 
the first to run, do not amount to the weight of a 
feather in the scale. Some of them are so large 
that they cannot run fast, [laughter,] and would 
only be shot in the back. 

But, Mr. President, it is our duty here to incul- 
cate a spirit in the minds and hearts of the people 
which will dispose them to act in the best manner 
possible. We are presumed to be representative 
men; we are presumed to reflect the will of those 
who sent us here; and acting in thatcapacity our 
words are treasured up, however foolish they may 
be, and however ridiculous they are; and they are 
not simply attributed to us as individual mem- 
bers of the Senate, but they are, often improperly, 
ascribed to the power behind us — the people we 
represent. Let us, therefore, be cautious in the 
employment of words; let us remember that this 
Union, as much as we love it, can only be pre- 
served by the same means that brought it into 
existence. What are they? Was any State ever 
whipped into the Union? Then no State can ever 
hereafter be whipped in; else that will be a differ- 
ent Union. Was any State ever coerced into the 
Union ? Then no State hereafter can be coerced 
into the Union; else that will be a different Union. 

As the States came in by their own voluntary 
act, they must remain in by their own voluntary 
act; and when they go out, as they contributed to 
pay the general expenses for fortifications and 
armies while theywere in, every fortification which 
is necessarily local, and within the jurisdiction of 
a seceding State, belongs to that State, and was 
intended for the benefit of that State. South Car- 
olina has as much claim to Fort Columbus in New 
York harbor this day as the United States has to 
Fort Sumter; and the same right to attack Fort 
Columbus as the United States has to attack Fort 
Moultrie; and I pledge you one feeble arm to act 
in a contingency that may arise as soon as the 
United States undertake to attack Fort Moultrie 
or any other fort; and if they do not surrender 
Sumter pretty quick, it will be attacked on the 
other side, and it ought to be, for it is holding a 
military position within the jurisdiction of a for- 
eign State against the will of that State. I must 
say, that I commend the honor and forbearance of 
South Carolina; and she has done it to prevent the 



effusion of blood; and she has done it with the 
hope that the good sense of the people would come 
to a proper understanding of tlie subject, and ad- 
just these difficulties on an honorable and states- 
manlike compromise, or a peaceful separation. 

The alternative has been presented to us, and 
we are compelled to act upon it. I said, in the 
beginning of this session, that Congress would 
do nothing; that there was a feeling among the 
people that would drive them with hot haste; and 
1 thought South Carolina was too hasty; but, 
whether she was or not, she must be the judge. 
I was afraid she would be too hasty, and afraid^ 
other States would be too hasty. 1 wanted the 
•whole of the States to consult; and I preferred 
that even Missouri, as remote as she is, should 
be taken into consultation with others. 1 knew 
that her patriotic heart throbbed with emotion for 
this Union; but not that kind of Union which 
some Senators speak of when they simply say, 
"Union! Union!" but a constitutional Union; a 
Union protecting the rights of the States, and the 
people of the States; and I am really tired of hear- 
ing long memorials and petitions and speeches, 
with nothing but " Union !" "Union!" I would 
challenge Barnwell Rhett to answer whether he 
is not in favor of the Union; I would challenge 
Mr. Yancey, are you not for the Union; and they 
would both answer " yes, "with as much empha- 
sis and sincerity as the Senator from Maine and 
the Senator from New York. But then I come 
to ask the question, what Union do you want? 
"The Union of the Constitution," they would 
say. " How do you construe that Constitution ?" 
Then they separate. One wants one kind of a con- 
stitutional Union, and the other wants another kind 
of a constitutional Union. 

Now, Mr. President, as we have arrived at this 
fearful crisis in our country's history, let us have 
an honest understanding — either a Union about 
which there shall be no controversy with regard 
to our respective rights, or no Union, and a sep- 
aration. That is what I say. I have come to 
that point, and I intend to act upon it. No Union, 
unless it be a Union upon which we can all agree. 
I do not want to be continually quarreling and 
defying each other; one saying " we can whip 
you," and the other saying " we can whip you." 
Are we not ashamed of that, as statesmen .' One 
thieatens to march an army down South, and the 
othersays "come on, we will meet you." What 
good can all that do.' Had we not better under- 
stand whatwe want, what weintend to insistupon, 
what we will have, or separate; and if we are 
forced to separation, had we not better do it peace- 
ably than by war? One says, " Here is the great 
Mississippi, running from north to south, almost 
from forty-nine degrees north latitude to ihr. Gulf, 
and we cannot divide the Mississippi." It does 
not enter into the question at all. The Congress 
of 181;'), at Vienna, settled the question of inter- 
national law governing the exit from navigable 
waters. The question has never been revived 
since. Brazil undertook to revive it, with regard 
to the Amazon. She undertook to make treaties 
with Peru, with Bolivia, and with New Granada, 
conceding her right to close the navigation of the 
Amazon. The treaty was rejected. The treaty 



was called a treaty for fluvial navigation. Mr. 
Clay, who was then our minister at Peru, wrote 
an able argument against it. 

It was defeated in Bolivia, in Peru, and in New 
Granada, as conflicting with the established prin- 
ciples of international law, as settled by the Con- 
gress of Vienna in 1815; so that the question of 
the free navigation of navigable waters is not in- 
volved in it. It is conceded that you may impose 
police regulations to pre vent smuggling and fraud; 
but you cannot stop the naivigation. Hence, that 
question is settled; and I say to the whole North- 
west, entertain no fears upon that question. Mis- 
souri is as deeply interested in the navigation of 
the Mississippi river as any other State, except 
Louisiana; and Louisiana, by her ordinance of 
secession, which I have here before me, has pub- 
licly proclaimed she will not interfere with that 
free navigation. Hence, these are mere bugbears, 
thrown in to frighten timid persons, that we can- 
not cut off* and divide the Mississippi valley. I 
hope and 1 trust it may never be divided; yet 
circumstances may arise, misconduct may be so 
great, oppression so intolerable, as to force us to 
divide; and if we do divide, had we not better 
divide peaceably than forcibly? If we are com- 
pelled to divide, had we not better divide as hon- 
orable, thinking, and intelligent men, than as 
reckless brutes, governed alone by instinct? 

It is said by many here that South Carolina 
has suffered no wrong; Maryland, Virginia, Ken- 
tucky, and Missouri, have suffered it. I know 
that MarylandjVirginia, Kentucky, and Missouri 
have suffered ten times as much as South Carolina 
ever did; I might say a hundred times as much; 
but the fact that she acts in advance, whether we 
consider it hasty or inconsiderate or not, proves 
that she is noble, patriotic, and true in her im- 
pulse. She is acting for our benefit. We may 
think a different policy would have been better, 
as I do think; but it shows her regard for a great 
question involving all of us together; and notonly 
all of us, but the whole of the human race. It is 
not a question of slaves only. The very princi- 
ple that will permit them to attack one species of 
property against the Constitution, and break it 
down, will justify them in taking another species 
of property and confiscating that also. Theagra- 
rianism of the North will spread from the success 
of their attempt to break down slavery in the 
South; and every property holder of New York 
and Boston is as much interested in repressing 
this attack upon private property as I am. Let 
the populace rise; let the mob gather; let the im- 
pulse be given to them, and they will say: "Why 
shall one man have $15,000,000, and we stand 
here starving and begging for bread ?" This feel- 
ing will be engendered. Law-abiding, orderly, 
good people ought, therefore, to repress every 
thing that leads to it. We of the South ought to 
repress it; you of the North ought to repress it; 
and, if it be not repressed, the consequences will 
come home to you in a more fearful degree than 
they can possibly come to us. 

While Missouri has suflered so much, she has 
been the last to act; yet that State will act. The 
action, however, of Kentucky, of Virginia, I am 
sorry to say it, and of Tennessee, has been of the 



most disastrous character. It has done no harm 
to Missouri; but it has stimulated northern men 
to make speeches, such as the Kino of New York, 
very violent, domineering, demanding, threaten- 
ing, after he hears the returns from Tennessee. I 
am sorry that Virginia has lagged behind. If all 
these border States, as they are called, had come 
right up to the mark at once, we should have had 
a settlement, or a peaceful separation; and we 
shall never have it until that is done. 

Some persons say these southern States were 
precipitate. Grant it; I will not stop to quarrel 
about that. What are we to do ? Take things as 
we find them, and shape our action according to 
the necessities of the case. We do not make the 
rain; but if it rains we put up an umbrella over 
our heads. We do not make the sun shine, but 
yet we will raise a parasol to protect us from its 
rays. We did not make South Carolina go out 
of the Union. It may have been hasty, for aught 
I know. I will not say it was or not. What shall 
we do.> Take that course which is best calculated 
to preserve our rights, either in the Union or in 
anew one. What course ought that to be? For 
every State to go out together— I mean all the 
slaveholding States. Do you say we desert our 
northern friends.' No. Our warm sympathies, 
our high admiration for them will be as lasting as 
time; but we can best serve them by serving our- 
selves in this matter; because if the fifteen States 
were all to recede from the Union, associate to- 
gether, and say to the North, " do this and we 
are with you again," the North would concede it 
to us; but if some are going off, and we are hesi- 
tating and higgling and doubting, it makes the 
North so confident in its power, that they say, let 
South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, 
and Florida go. Very well. Just as sure as you 
let them go, others will follow; and what other 
States will follow ? Every slaveholding State, ex- 
cept Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. I am 
afraid of old Virginia. She is so hesitating, so 
timid, walking on egg-shells, and afraid she will 
mash them; but, just as sure as you live, if no 
adjustment on honorable terms is made in a sat- 
isfactory manner, Missouri, Arkansas, and Kan- 
sas will go. [Laughter.] Yes, Kansas. Do not 
be surprised at the use of that term. Montgom- 
ery does not rule there now. He can make his 
raids upon Missouri, and be driven back; they can 
make attacks from Iowa and be driven back; but 
the material interests of Kansas will force her to 
link her fortunes with Missouri. 

But for the hot-bed plants that have been planted 
in Kansas, through the instrumentality of the Em- 
igrant Aid Society, Kansas would have been with 
Missouri this day; and when these hot-bed plants 
die out — as they are fast dying out, and sending 
petitions to the Senator from Massachusetts, beg- 
ging for bread, that they are starving — as soon as 
they die out, the homogeneous character of the 
people will gradually bring them back into the 
arms of Missouri. They are begging for bread 
and begging for an independent State government; 
and then saying, "If you will not give us bread, 
give us land; we are starving." I might ask the 
question, can you eat land? But it showsit is all 
a trick, a fraud gotten up through this Emigrant 



Aid Society. It will die out. Every attempt at 
fraud will be exposed sooner or later; and this 
miserable attempt is now being exposed, and the 
people are beginning to comprehend it. Even 
the traveling agents, who have gone abroad beg- 
gjng for contributions to relieve poor, starving 
Kansas, have received more rifles, more lead and 
powder, than they have bread and meat. These 
are facts that I can prove in a court of justice. I 
know what I say; and no one who is acquainted 
with the subject will contradict me. Do you not 
see, therefore, it is all a preparation to attack Mis- 
souri ? I was informed by the Governor of Kan- 
sas, two weeks before the thing took place, that 
he was in fearful apprehension that Montgomery 
would make an attack on Missouri, or the Cher- 
okee nation, and so on down to Texas, for that 
was a part of their plan. It was to circumscribe 
slavery and break it down through the Cherokee 
nation, through the Choctaw nation, through the 
Creek nation, in the borders of Arkansas, and 
then into Texas; and that plan is not yet given 
up. It is smothered; it sleepeth for the time; but 
it v/ill be revived again, unless we are prepared 
to meet it 

Now, Mr. President, whatoughtwetodo? Live 
in what we call a fraternal relation, yet compelled 
to keep arms in our hands, or submit to depreda- 
tions uponourproperty? At the beginning of this 
session, I suggested the propriety of having an 
armed police, controlled by the States, paid from 
the Federal Treasury, to prevent these invasions 
and enforce the fugitive slave law all along the line 
separating the slaveholding from the non-slave- 
holding States It was met with derision. Very 
well. When we divide, as divide we must, we shall 
have the same thing to do; but we shall have it to 
do in a larger degree. We shall then have to raise 
a very large army, and a strong military force, 
each watching the other; and the slightest inter- 
ruption may lead to a collision which will involve 
the whole country in a bloody war. If my sug- 
gestion had been received, something might have 
been done;-but my suggestion was only intended 
as a ineans to check action and give time for re- 
flection ; for if the sentiment expressed by the 
North in the election of Mr. Lincoln is the set- 
tled judgment of the North, and if the practice of 
the North in stealing our negroes is the settled 
practice of the North, I would not live with you 
one day; I would divide this hour, this minute. 
There are men, it is true, who say they would 
not steal a slave; but they would not prevent any- 
body else from stealing one. There are men who 
say they have no objection to the fugitive slave 
law; but will they aid to execute it? Not one. Is 
not there, then, that dangerous, miserable senti- 
ment we cannot tolerate and live in unity with? 
Perhaps it will be said the House of Repre- 
sentatives passed a very fine resolution yesterday. 
We have a right to notice the official proceedings 
of the House. They passed a resolution that they 
would not interfere with slavery in the States, 
and also that they did not intend to do it, embrac- 
ing two points: first, they would not do it, and 
second, they did not intend to do it. Now, I wish 
to call the attention of the Senate to a little cir- , 
cumstancc that took place in this body not twelve 



6 



months ago. lasked the question of several north- 
ern Senators: why do you wish to circumscribe 
slavery r Wiiy does it affect you to prevent the 
expansion and spreading of it in new Territories? 
The answer was, by hemming it in, the slaves 
will gradually becoine so numerous, that slavery 
will become so unprofitable or dangerous that the 
master, perforce, will emancipate — thus seeking 
to accomplish by indirect means the very thing 
they swear in the House they do not desire to do 
by direct means. That is the purpose of every 
member of this Senate on the Republican side. 
If it is not, I would like for some one to rise and 
answer me. They have avowed it. No one has 
denied it. I have charged it upon them. Some 
of them were honest enough to confess it. Others 
chose to sit mute under the charge, thereby giv- 
ing it a confession. Therefore, to say, " We do 
not intend to make a directattack upon your State, 
but we will bring to bear a train of circumstances 
that will break down slavery in your State," is 
just as base and as infamous as if you raised an 
army to attack us in the State. You are attack- 
ing the State of Missouri every day. 

When you talk of enforcing the fugitive slave 
law, you know it is not done; and when you say 
you occasionally enforce it, you know also that 
nineteen out of twenty never come to the cogni- 
zance of the law. 

Mr. SEWARD. How would you enforce the 
law in respect to those that never come to the 
cognizance of tiie law ? 

Mr. GREEN. I will tell you. Your abolition 
societies pay fifty dollars a head for every one 
stolen and taken to the North. I would punish 
those societies; and if you were a Union-loving 

feople, and observed your oath, you would do it. 
Applause in the galleries.] 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The galleries 
"will be cleared, vf the disturbance is repeated. 

Mr. GREEN. Why, sir, no rogue ever had a 
good opinion of the law, when he felt the halter 
draw. I believe that is in Hudibras, somewhere. 

Mr. ANTHONY. Something like it. 

Mr. GREEN. Now, sir, it is not simply the 
courts, not simply the liberty bills, not simply 
the official acts, of which I complain. These are 
butthettloom.as the miners would say, that blos- 
som out. It is the deep-seated mind, the sentiment 
that has been inculcated at the North through the 
instrumentality of politicians, teachers of schools, 
tract societies, and everything that you can con- 
ceive of, which underlies those popular political 
indications, stronger than all of it. There is not 
one that dares run counter to it; and when our 
noble friends over on this side have stood up so 
manfully, they have been cut down as with a 
sharp scythe, one by one, until every one must 
go; and why? Because there is a sentiment in- 
culcated there which is in direct conflict with their 
opinions. You have got to go, [to Mr. Bright;] 
you have already gone, [to Mr. Fitch;] and every 
one of you will go. Yes, sir, as the Senator from 
New York said, the "irrepressible conflict" will 
go on. What did he mean by that doctrine ? I 
do not suppose he meant a bloody war, for he is 
not a man of war; he is a man of words. What 
kind of conflict, then, did he mean ? Why, a con- 



tinual agitation of the question, until they get us 
in such trepidation and fear that, out of regard 
for personal safety, we would sell our negroes, or 
emancipate them, or run them off, and gradually 
work it down, Missouri first, Maryland next, 
Virginia next, until you crowd them down to the 
last extremity. That is the " irrepressible con- 
flict;" and yet his friends in the other House 
vote that they do not intend to interfere with 
slavery in the States. 

Can that Senator reconcile his doctrine of the 
" irrepressible conflict," that all must be slave or 
all free, with an honest understanding of the vote 
of the House yesterday, that they did not intend 
to interfere with slavery in the States? Can any- 
body do it? There is a fraud in it. There is a 
system inaugurated to lull, to stop and suspend 
action in the border States; and if I had the voice 
of a Boanerges, I would speak to old Virginia to 
rouse herself up and go to work, and not rest upon 
fancied security, and not content herself with these 
vague promises, all thrown out for the purpose of 
staying her action. So I would say to Kentucky, 
Tennessee, and North Carolina. For Missouri 
I need not speak. She is ready to act; she intends 
to act; and her duty and her interest prompt her 
to act, and she will. 

Now, sir, it is for the purpose of trying to come 
to some fair understanding that we ought to dis- 
cuss this question, and not to inflame the passions 
of cither side. I commend the spirit that prompted 
the honorable Senator from Kentucky in oflering 
his propositions, not because I hope any good re- 
sult from them, tor I do not. I desire a good re- 
sult; but do not entertain any hope of iti If the 
amendments he proposes were all adopted to-day 
unanimously by all the States of the Union, and 
the same feeling continued to exist that now ex- 
ists in the Abolition party, and the same practices 
were kept up, they would not be worth one single 
straw. As I said to the Senator from New Hamp- 
shire, [Mr. Clark,] I believe it was, I say now, 
the present Constitution is good enough, as good 
as I want it, as good as anybody ought to desire 
it. We have not lived up to it. Plain and pal- 
pable provisions of it are violated with impunity, 
and not a representative of that party in this 
Chamber will say he will execute it. If they will 
not execute it, will they execute the Consiitution 
as proposed to be amended by the honorable Sen- 
ator from Kentucky? Would any Republican 
Senator raise his finger to execute the fugitive 
slave law then, any more than he would now? 
You say you impose a penalty upon the States, 
if there be a rescue by a mob. As I have stated, 
the mob rescues one, and nineteen slip through 
the fingers of the law, and elude detection, and 
are spirited away through the instrumentality of 
those underground railroads; and fifty dollars a 
head are paid for them by the Abolition societies. 
I have heard of but two being taken for a long 
while; and I will relate thatcircumstance to give 
you an idea of the honesty and morality and re- 
ligion of some of the Abolitionists. 
j One of them was living over in Illinois. Two 
negroes escaped from Missouri on one side of the 
j river. There was a Kentuckian living close by, 
I and the owner went over to the Kentuckian and 



said to him, "I have offered ^800 reward for these 
two negroes; they will be sure to come to that 
Abolitionist's house, for he keeps a station on the 
underground railroad." The Kentuckian went 
over to the Abolitionist and told him about it, and 
said, " Now, I will give you half of the reward 
if you will take them forme." " Well, "said he, 
" I will tell you what I will do; it will not do for 
me to catch them for you; but I will detain them 
here longenough for you to come and take them." 
The negroes came there. He took them in; he 
entertained them; gave them to eat; and sent his 
boy over to the Kentuckian, and the Kentuckian 
returned and got them. The Abolitionist pre- 
tended to be very mad about it, but the Kentuckian 
received the ^800 reward, and gave the Aboli- 
tionist one half. That is the only instance that 
I ever heard of where an Abolitionist interposed 
to catch a negro. [Laughter.] 

I am not talking fiction. I am simply stating 
plain, naked facts to illustrate the enormity of 
the attacks that are made upon us. What would 
any northern man say if he had to pay such re- 
wards for the recovery of his property? It is 
sometimes said: you do not recover all the horses 
that escape. No; but have you ever known an 
honest community employed in the business of 
stealing hordes, or preventing the recapture of 
stolen horses? Yet you think your community 
is honest who are engaged in doing this with re- 

fard to slaves. I own slaves in Michigan this 
ay. It would be worth more than my life to go 
for them. Will any Senator say he owns prop- 
ertyinMissouri,and thathe is afraid togo afterit? 
Now, if this state of things is to continue, if 
this feeling is to be permanent, had we not better 
separate? I say we must have a retraction of 
northern sentiment, or a separation. There is no 
use of talking. We cannot have peace; we can- 
not maintain our trust; we cannot maintain our 
honor, urdess there is that retraction. I shall be 
the last to separate from the Union, if I can help 
it; but I think the more speedy the action of the 
border States is, the better the prospect of a reac- 
tion in the northern mind. I think so, because I 
hear the rampant talk of northern Senators, since 
they see a probability that the border States are 
going to hesitate; and poor old Virginia is lag- 
ging behind, when she ought to have been fore- 
most in the work. It is true, she was not fore- 
most in the Revolution; but she came up man- 
fully to it. She has always been true ever since; 
but why this hesitation, this vacillation, and this 
doubtful position, which encourages the North, 
and dampens the ardor of the South? You all 
know this thing lias got to be settled in one of 
two ways — either separation or an honorable ad- 
justment; and I say there can be no honorable 
adjustment, which will be satisfactory and pro- 
tective in its character, unless there is a retraction 
of northern sentiment. 

True, you may plant an army along the line; 
and my idea of putting that police force there was 
simply to put it there until the time for reaction 
had occurred, and when that time had passed, 
and no reaction had taken place, then I was for 
separation. I was willing to resort to every ex- 
pedient — I am yet — to give the North time, place, 



and opportunity for repentance, for they need it. 
If they repent not, I would then spew them out 
of my mouth. I would let them go; and I would 
resort to adequate means to protect ourselves with 
ourselves; and yet, when I did that, I would not 
draw the sword; I would not point a cannon to- 
wards them; I would not present a bayonet; I 
would not make a warlike movement; but I would 
be ready for any action that they might take. I 
think the time for settling questions by physical 
force has passed. 

In this age of Christianity, of civilization, and 
of refinement, we ought to be able to discuss 
questions and adjust the'm by reason, by argu- 
ment, by compromise, and not by military power; 
and no military power on land or sea ought ever 
to be used, except in self-defense. That is justi- 
fiable. I would, therefore, if I had the right to 
counsel the southern States, beg them to bear with 
Fort Sumter for a time, though held by a foreign 
Government, to see if the question could not'be ad- 
justed withoutforce; butfor a foreign Government 
to hold a fort within our own confines, I never 
would concede as right. Let us keep the peace; 
let us practice forbearance; let us interchange 
opinions; and when we arrive at that point which 
satisfies us that we cannot agree, that we cannot 
live together on teiTns of peace and equality, let 
us bid each other farewell, and separate as hon- 
orable men, and not as belligerents. 

If that is not done, fearful consequences may 
result. If armies are to be brought in conflict — 
the sturdy men of the North and the valiant men 
of the South, with all the improvements of mod- 
ern warfare, with all the equipments and appoint- 
ments of well-organized armies — most fearful, 
bloody, and unfortunate will be the issue. 1 would 
say: 

" Oh, Heaven, my bleeding country save ! 
Is there no hand on Higli to shield the brave?" 

It is fearful to contemplate ; and yet, as fearful and 
unfortunate as it is, we are drifting along, not de- 
signedly, but we are gradually drifting along up 
to the fearful catastrophe. How are we to arrest 
it? By such speeches as the Senator from New 
York has made? No; they stimulate opposition 
on the other side. I am practicing forbearance 
when I tell you such speeches as his are driving 
the country to madness, and doing more harm 
than he can ever do good in his life. So with the 
Senator from Maine, [Mr. Fessendev,] in his 
plausible manner of speaking. He, too, led off 
in a vein tending precisely in the same direction. 

Now, Mr. President, we have a fearful respons- 
ibility resting upon us. This Senate cannot amend 
the Constitution. This Senate can make no ad- 
justment. This Senate had better let the subject 
sleep. All that is said is calculated to stimulate 
one side or the other. We had better make the 
ordinary appropriations, and let the people and 
the States, through proper conventions, undertake 
the work of adjustment. It is no use to say that 
no adjustment can be made; it is no use to say 
an adjustment can be made. It is a very doubt- 
ful question to solve. We, as a Senate and as a 
Congress, can do no good; yet the motive that 
promptsthe resolutions of the Senator from Ken- 
tucky is good, and I commend it only for this 



8 



reason: it may, perhaps, hold the country still 
long enough for that reflection which will bring 
the northern mind right. Without that change 
in the northern mind, I would not accept any con- 
stitution to be associated with any such people as 
they have proved themselves to be in the past. 

If we can quiet the public mind; if we can throw 
out suggestions which will induce the North to 
pause and say, they will enforce the fugitive slave 
law, they will guaranty us the protection of our 
rights, they will secure to us all that the Consti- . 
tution now promises; and if we see there is a dis- 
position to do what they say — then, indeed, I 
would love this Union." We have grown with 
time; we have increased with age; we have pros- 
pered under every circumstance; wc have over 
thirty million people; we have productions innu- 
merable; we have commerce, manufactures, civil- 
ization, Christianity, and advancement in all that 
makes a people good and great. War will re- 
verse the action of all this, and throw us back; 
war will brutalize; war will barbarize; war will 
throw us back more than a century, in the short 
space of five years. It demoralizes the people; 
it eats up the substance of the people; it brutal- 
izes the feelings; and it is the last resort, but 
sometimes a fearful necessity. 

Now, Mr. President, the object of my few re- 
marks is this: as this proposed amendment to the 
naval bill comes at such an inopportune time; 
comes when we have no money in the Treasury; 
and comes from those who are refusing to do jus- 
tice to little claimants because they have no money ; 
comes when we do not need it; and comes with an 
avowal that it is intended to coerce the weaker 
States — I think I am compelled to oppose it on the 
general principles which I have announced. I 
shall continue to do so; and, whether successful 
or not, time will prove whether it will accomplish 
the ends that the friends of the measure expect. 



No threats, no petitions, no demands but jus- 
tice. Let the whole of the southern States act 
together as a unit, and act speedily, and nego- 
tiate with the North as equals. Sir, I would 
not take a proposition that we had forced upon 
the North. The North ought not to take a propo- 
sition that they had forced upon the South. I 
want to negotiate as equals — the fifteen southern 
States the equals of the eighteen on the other 
side. 

Several Senators. Nineteen. 

Mr. GREEN. Nineteen now; but that other 
one is going to be on our side; and that is the 
reason I let Kansas pass so easily. Mr. Presi- 
dent, every body desires an adjustment; everybody 
desires peace and harmony; everybody desires a 
continuance of the Union; but when we come to 
talk about what is the Union, and what are our 
rights in it, we commence to differ. Let us goto 
work and settle the question, if we can. Do it, 
and every slaveholding State will join at once. 
Let them come together in concert, make their 
propositions as honorable States to the others. If, 
then, we cannot agree, our separation is perma- 
nent and peaceable. 

This is my whole purpose; and I will state, in 
conclusion, my positions: 

First. That any State has the right to secede. 

Second. If that right is exercised wrongfully, 
the State alone is responsible. 

Third. When any State does in fact secede, all 
the fixtures in her limits belong to the State. 

Fourth. Every effort to save the Union and 
preserve the peace of the country, should be made 
before any other remedy is resorted to. And 
finally, when all efforts fail, let us part in peace, 
and let each section pursue the course and line of 
policy deemed best for the good of the people; 
and to the God of justice, not of war, I commit 
the fate of our beloved country. 



Printed at the office of the Congressional Globe. 



OF CONGRESS 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



011 895 776 3 



.J 






